Waging Peace
This article in the WaPo is a more personal look at Dean on eth campaign trail. Dean reacts to the enthusiasm his campaign has generated, as well as speaking frankly of his straight-talking methods as both asset and liability. As well as unrequited love for lollipops (read it, you'll see). There is also a slight suggestion that Dean's candor is not as off the cuff as it seems:
Dean will have to be careful - while his postions are pragmatic, talking about the political expediency of them leaves him vulnerable. Also, Dean has been pushing this theme recently, about setting a bad precedent:
This is a flat-out poor strategic move on his part. While I agree that America must set the moral tone, the argument that other nations will be "inspired" by our action in Iraq to act similarly (ex. India attacking Paksitan, or China attacking Taiwan) is deeply flawed. Precedent has absolutely zero meaning in the context of foreign policy - China's decision to invade Taiwan will always hinge on what our commitment to defend Taiwan is, for example. Eugene Volokh has a fairly solid and rigorous rebuttal of Dean's point that I think demonstrates its flaws well. It's far better to insist on "moral tone" for foreign policy than to put too much stock in precedents. The moral arguments are very useful and will have resonance on the right as well as the left.
Dean says he doesn't do things for political reasons. When you start qualifying everything, he says, you get in trouble.
But when a young mother asks a question about Dean's high approval rating from the National Rifle Association, he gives a curious answer. After saying that Vermont has no need for gun-control laws -- it has one of the lowest homicide rates in the country -- he concedes that it's a view some people will have trouble with.
"But it's also a position that will allow me to win the presidency," he says. Al Gore's strong support for gun control cost him dearly in a few key states in 2000, Dean says. "If Al Gore had my position on guns, I wouldn't be here and he'd be in the White House."
Dean will have to be careful - while his postions are pragmatic, talking about the political expediency of them leaves him vulnerable. Also, Dean has been pushing this theme recently, about setting a bad precedent:
"The threshold for what America does militarily has got to be higher than anyone else's," Dean is saying. "America has always set the moral tone in foreign policy. And if we attack a nation unilaterally that's not a threat to us, it means that someone will try the same thing, somewhere down the line, and justify it by our actions."
This is a flat-out poor strategic move on his part. While I agree that America must set the moral tone, the argument that other nations will be "inspired" by our action in Iraq to act similarly (ex. India attacking Paksitan, or China attacking Taiwan) is deeply flawed. Precedent has absolutely zero meaning in the context of foreign policy - China's decision to invade Taiwan will always hinge on what our commitment to defend Taiwan is, for example. Eugene Volokh has a fairly solid and rigorous rebuttal of Dean's point that I think demonstrates its flaws well. It's far better to insist on "moral tone" for foreign policy than to put too much stock in precedents. The moral arguments are very useful and will have resonance on the right as well as the left.
Comments